The talking heads have been abuzz over the London bombings, and of course, the Wall Street journal editorial page opined that they hate us for who we are, not what we do. Lord am I glad that they keep those crackpots away from the business side, otherwise the WSJ would be the Weekly World News!
I see this tragedy and the continuing disaster in Iraq as an unfortunate outgrowth of a unique trifecta of failure in the administration's plan for the so-called "war on terror." With a respectful nod to Sun Tzu and his masterwork from a world ago, The Art of War, the administration failed to: 1) know ourselves 2) know the enemy and 3) know the situation.
As Sun-Tzu reminds us from 2500 years ago, "when you engage in actual fighting, if victory is long in coming, then men's weapons will grow dull and their ardor will be damped. If you lay siege to a town, you will exhaust your strength.....if the campaign is protracted, the resources of the State will not be equal to the strain. ...when your weapons are dulled, your ardor damped, your strength exhausted and your treasure spent, other chieftains will spring up to take advantage of your extremity, then no man, however wise, will be able to avert the consequences that must ensue."
1) The decisionmakers did not know ourselves, including the tactical and strategic strengths and weaknesses of our military and the willingness of the people to embrace this conflict. They miscalculated the forces necessary, the supplies and equipment needed, the logistical situation on the ground and the makeup of an all-volunteer army. Included within the last is the failure to properly calculate:
a) the numbers needed;
b) the impact on the war on future recruitment;
c) the misuse of the National guard and the Reserve. These are not professionally-trained front-line troops, they are veterinary technicians and insurance salesmen who want to serve and make some pocket money. The guard and reserve as we knew it has been abused--welcome to hurricane season;
d) the psychological, sociological and economic impact on those deployed and their families and
e) the cost of aftercare for those who have suffered grievous physical and mental harm.
The administration also never was truthful with the American people on the reasons for this war, and equated opposition to the war with a lack of patriotism. As Teddy Roosevelt, a great Republican president stated, "to announce that there must be no criticism of the president, or that we are to stand by the president, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public."
2) They did not understand the enemy. First, can we stop with the "War on Terror?" Terror, as thousands have said, is a tactic. You cannot make war on a tactic. Terror is a tactic that has been used for thousands of years, in various incarnations, from barbarian tribes on the fringe of Rome to Civil War Raiders to the mujahadeen in Afghanistan, and it has been used for so long because it is an effective way for the outmanned and outgunned to strike at the heart and mind of an enemy that appears superior on paper.
The "War on Terror" also inappropriately lumps together disparate entities that have no inherent connection other than their choice of violence du jour. Rebels in Chechnya, paramilitary forces in the Philippines, Basque separatists and al Qaida may use the same toolbox but they are building vastly different projects.
As I mentioned above, according to the Wall Street Journal editorial board, they hate us for who we are. They hate us because we drive SUVs, because a scantily-clad Paris Hilton soaps up a car in a burger ad, because we listen to irreverent music, because our kids wear suggestive clothes and because most of us read some different testaments of Mid-East religions.
Right.
OK, there may be some unstable jihadists out there who think offing a few infidels caps a perfect day out with the family, but for the most part, terror is a TACTIC used to accomplish an OBJECTIVE. A key part of fighting that war is understanding that objective. It isn't getting Paris Hilton off TV (although that is a laudable goal) or covering up haltertops or ending conspicuous consumption or having Limbaugh go to a station break so the imam can call the faithful to prayer over the EIB Network.
Their objectives are to stop various U.S. policies that have an impact on their lives or belief sets, from our stance on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict to bases in their holy lands to the Iraqi invasion and occupation. Understanding does not mean condoning their actions or necessarily yielding, but fighting an enemy without understanding their objectives is nothing but swinging at curveballs in the dirt.
3. They didn't understand the situation. From not dealing with the complex interplay of Shi'a and Sunnis, to creating a power vacuum with no alternative to fill it, from a seemingly permanent occupation of a Muslim land to losing control of the roads is do not pass go, do not collect $200 (unless you're Halliburton), head straight for hell!
Strike Three.
Peace.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
1 comment:
I respectfully disagree.
Yours: "These are people who voluntarily signed a contract vowing to defend their country and go wherever needed whenever called. For many years, they've been riding it out collecting money and "playing" soldier for one weekend a month. I find it absolutely amazing that the same people who signed voluntarily and accepted money month after month now claim that it's unfair to expect them to leave their families to fulfill their obligations. If this is the case, they need to repay all the money they have fraudulently collected from the government while pretending that they would be willing and able to live up to their end of the contract."
They have NOT been playing soldier, and all the reservists and guardsmen that I know couldn't be further from "pretending" anything--they have been training and preparing in their role as support for active duty troops, the duty they were recruited to perform. Currently, according to the Washington Post, 41% of the troops on the ground in Iraq are guard troops. The mission of the Guard and the reserve (distinct entities, as the NG is technically a federalized militia organized by the states) has never before been viewed as involving such an extensive and lengthy deployment. Up until late last year, the Army National Guard was still using the "one weekend a month, two weeks a years" recruiting slogan. The front page of the Army Reserve website today still extols the virtue of the "part-time" commitment and local training.
Extended tours of duty are difficult on Guard and Reserve families. Yes, they knew that going in, but they volunteered at a time when the official policy restricted deployments to 6 months. While civilian jobs are in theory protected, pay is not. Many "part-time" soldiers have suffered significant financial losses.
There is also a maximum in most cases of 2 years active-duty service, which is being burned through like mad with extended tours. The most experienced "citizen-soldiers" have used up their time and are being replaced by a dwindling number of less-experienced replacements.
In addition, as mentioned above, the NG does double-duty as state militias, providing invaluable service in local emergencies. Hurricanes, floods, wildfires, etc. require the services of the Guard locally, but the troops but aren't there.
You say "The National Guard and Reserve is a serious, honorable commitment to one's country."
I agree, and far too valuable to be wasted in a short-sighted, stupid way.
Post a Comment